Opening Word document…

ITU applications fail.

John Gilbertson 20, JD from Drake University Law School, “Blunt Advice: A Crash Course in Cannabis Trademarks,” IDEA, Vol. 60, pp. 539-540, Lexis, kav

For those brands that want federal registration for their cannabis marks right now, and are comfortable with some degree of risk, a few novel tactics have emerged. The [*540] first involves filing an intent to use (ITU) application under Section 1(b). Intent to use applications allow an applicant to secure its place in line without having to actually use the mark in commerce. Once an ITU application has been granted a notice of allowance, the applicant will have six months (extendable to three years) to file a statement of use, thereby transforming the ITU allowance into a full-blown federally registered trademark. A savvy cannabis brand might file an ITU application now, declaring that cannabis-related goods and services are (or will be) lawful under the CSA, and then simply pray that it comes true before the three-year window lapses. 160 Given the long timeline of examination, such a tactic would, if successful, confer a considerable head start to those seeking nationwide priority for their cannabis marks. The obvious risk is that if no change in the law actually occurs, the mark will be just as unlawful three years down the road as it is right now; the applicant will then have to start all over with a new application. At the end of the day, however, this seems an unlikely solution since the USPTO is entitled to ask questions to which the applicant is required to truthfully respond. 161 An alternative is to apply, wait for Office Action, respond, wait for final, and then before the response is due, refile just to keep the application going.

Sign in to recut, update, or save this card.